|
Red Army = most effective force !
So, while researching, testing my scens, playing and comparing the OOBs i came to the conclusing, that the most dangerous opponent in the period about 1970 - 90 is the red army.
Quantity + quality will crush most opponents. Other countries like the UK, Chechoslowakia and DDR (GDR) comes on the next places. Also the swiss army and the US marines are impressive. But they are quite small and wouldīt play a large role in a massive west-east conflict in Europe in above time period. So do you think the game reflects reality quite good ? I donīt considered air + marine forces of course, since this game is about the ground forces mainly. |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
US Marines is a small force.. wow. Think about the Marines role in the Pacific against Japan in WW2. So in a east-west conflict Marines would certainly play a huge role invading and protecting coasts and bases, islands (vital to SOSUS and aircrafts)and adding flexibility to theater command.
|
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Quote:
Soviet doctrine of the late 70's called for covering the battlefield in smoke so they could get in close and overwhelm us with numbers. By the early 80's we were counting on it so we could use the blanket of smoke against them since by then we could see through the smoke with our TTS sights and pick them off before they could get close enough to see us. |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Double Deuce is absolutely right. While the red army MAY have a small edge in the seventies, prior to the appearance of thermals and NATO's 120mm guns, once these do make an appearance the tables are turned. Thermals dominate.
Also the squad size of most of the red armies mech and motorized troops is too small to be able to stay in the fight long enough. The small size and mediocre experience/morale of these units gives them far less combat power over a whole game than what their pure weapon stats etc seem to say. Narwan |
Re: Red Army = most effective force ! *DELETED*
Post deleted by baggypants
|
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Absolutely agreed - that tiny window in the early 70s would have been the best spot for the Soviets to try for WW3. Only the chieftain, of the NATO tanks, really could deal with these with its 120mm gun.
The problem of course was low training, and poor low-level tactics. (use them under AI control to simulate such http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif) Once TI sights and the XM1, Leo2 and Chally 1 arrive - it is just target practice time (esp if there is smoke about!). But even before then - liquidating the APCs at longer ranges to cause mass unhappiness in the accompanying tanks is a good tactic. Me - I like an early 70s NATO army as a challenging fight (pre-TI sights and super MBT, and no MLRS in other words) vs USSR, allowing them t-72 and T-64 and BMP, etc. As USSR - I like 1969-70 the best (T-64s, BMP, BRDM-sagger, sagger teams, SA-7, Gecko!!, Shilka!! (SA-6 Gainful in 70 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif ). 1966 on is also quite good as the USSR - SA-7 shoulder SAM (and not too much NATO EW), shilkas as well!, plus the BMP-1, and T-62s, BRDM-sagger vs some chieftains (but only in 67) and USA has M60A1, FGR has Leo 1 etc, marders in 1970 (which can be a bit of a problem for BTR and BMP). Cheers Andy |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Quote:
|
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Quote:
Chechz, Hungaria for the southern front http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
I like to play against the Soviets/Russians.
In game terms I think they are probably the most dangerous opponent - any year. Especially the combination of cheap scouts and BM-22s with ammo supply are difficult to combat - thermals are good but even the fastest tanks have trouble avoiding the BM-22 barrages. The only really effective solution I've found has been to use own CM armed systems and plenty of air... |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Wasn't the AI designed to play USSR?
It could be an explanation... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
So far, in my games, the Red Army usually does very well up until the mid 80s, for 2 reasons. Most NATO tanks don't seem to be able to take a punch very well, and the cheaper Soviet units always seem to allow enough reserve to mop up after the main engagement has worn out the units that open the fight. That last rifle company with RPGs is deadly to tanks and TOWs that just slaughtered the AFVs.
Maybe I need to work on my doctrine, but my NATO usually gets overwhelmed. Will |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Regarding soviet MBTs in the game: I canīt believe they donīt pack TIs until 1993..I know there's always Mobhack but, is that historically accurate? Thatīs an important soviet handicap against NATO tanks during the 80īs, so I donīt know if itīs "the" most effective army in the game.....I keep playing as the ruskies anyhow.
|
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
The first Russian (not Soviet) tanks to use TI sights were upgraded versions of the T-90 and T-80UM series using nonstandard imagers based on the imported Catherine sensor technology (I think). SO it does look like the Soviets hadn't put much research into thermals until too late. As far as I can recall, some of the clip-on ATGM TI sights were based on domestic technology, but with the fall of the USSR, the service schedule turned out to be much the same.
The last generation of Soviet tanks (T-64B/72B/80B & T-80U) used much-upgraded night sights with cascaded image intensifier and active IR converted (shorter wavelength than TI), which were way cheaper than Western thermals and quite possibly better than represented in the game regarding range and resistance on obscurants (don't quote me on this though). |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Pls. post in the new thread created by me !
WP/Nato polls + discussions http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif))) 1. Infantry (now active !) Later: 2. Missiles (AA/AT) 3. Arty 4. Tanks 5. Engineering/reliability of equipment 6. Training/hardness of troops |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Very good initiative gents. I played a lot with NATO WP armies in the mid 80īs. IMO NATO rules because of the TI once NATO troops run out of smoke and the visibility is high then WP has advantage otherwise NATO kicks ***.
Artur. |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Dear guys!
Soviet Army wouldn't have encountered any difficulties in conquering Western Europe in the event of CONVENTIONAL war with NATO. It goes without saying for many self-evident reasons and both Soviets and NATO knew that very well. That is why NATO took cover under its nuclear umbrella in fear of Soviets. Well, the Soviets weren't sure if NATO could really use nukes in conventional war but price was to high for them to check it. Therefore Cold War had never changed into hot war up to the USSR's downfall. Of course, from purely economic point of view such NATO military strategy was very effective tool because nuclear weapon is far more cheaper than conventional one. Thus NATO countries were able to be rich and secure but Soviets became more and more poorer due to necessity of maintaining huge and practically unuseful army. The end of this history is known... One main lesson taken from this history is that if you build a powerful army you must use it better sooner than later. Otherwise you shall lose without one shot and go down in flames! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
nvm. don't want to get into a cold war fight
|
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
In MBT I made the experiance that from the 70s to the early 80s and the massive increase of TI equipment in western forces the Red Army is indeed a formidable force. Though the training level is not too good you get decent hits with your equipment being close to always being the most modern on the battlefield.
Though against massive unsuported tank rushes ATGM (especially TOW) can be a real killer. I love playing small '78 campaigns with, playing a company of first tier T-80s... It's amazing how the obsolete 90mm and non SABOT 105mm rounds bounce of the forward armor. (Well except those from the British and German guns...) But well you have loads of arty to deal with that... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
"Soviet Army wouldn't have encountered any difficulties in conquering Western Europe in the event of CONVENTIONAL war with NATO."
It depends on the timeframe.In 1979,likely. In 1989, not so much. |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Quote:
|
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
"do you mean strictly technically"
With the caveat that evaluating armies purely on the basis of weapon systems matchup isn't advisable, T-64A vs M60A1 sounds a lot better than T-80B vs M1A1 (for the soviet side, that is). |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
sorry, I meant both techniqually and materially(numbers)
|
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Red Army was impressive force on paper, but situation on the field would be different. Most of the equipment was just cannon fodder,mayority of tanks used were still T-55,T-62.Later after 1986 they had more T-80B but there were Leopards-2, M1A1 and Challys.
|
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Thier problems always seemed to be poor build quality, and lack of spares and repairs.
Vehicles were dumped outside in the open and left without maintenance to fester with the snow piling up in winter etc - only a few were actually fired up and used for training or some obsolete vehicles were actually used instead of the actual unit kit for training, so if the baloon actually went up then the conscript crews would have little clue about thier t-72s as they had trained on say T-54. I recall buying some "Baikal" brand 12 bore shotgun shells back in the 70's. Allegedly for export (or a cunning KGB plan to make Westerners complacent about USSR ammo quality ?? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif ) - About half the cost of normal shells, but I only bought a few boxes. 2 or 3 misfires out of maybe 4 boxes, the brass started to rust/discolour after a couple of outings, and the fouling in the barrel was bad (no plastic shot cup). Andy |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Similar situation Mobhack describes was with T-35 heavy tanks already before WW2 - their units were training on T-26's and T-35 was being fired up just for parades.
|
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
You are really a very funny fellowship but unfortunately not well informed at all! You stated Soviet Army was a rubbish because of blah, blah, blah...
Try not to watch only CNN, BBC or similar "objective and independent" news sources. Also US Gulf War propaganda seems to sound in your opinions. Well, let's point out some basic facts: 1. T-80BV tank was superior to M1A1 tank because of better armor, better APFSDS ammo and comparable FCS and mobility. Moreover note that III World War would be waged in Central Europe not on the Iraqi desert. 2. In late 1980s Soviet tank arsenal in Central Europe was composed almost solely with T-64B/BV, T-72AV/BV and T-80BV tanks equipped mainly with reactive armor. Of course there were many thousands of old T-54/55/62 tanks in Soviet inventory but they were placed in other theaters of military operations such as Balkans, Central Asia and Chinese border. Due to constant modernization program these old tanks were clearly superior to the M-48A5, M-60A1, T-34, T-59, T-69 junk in Turkish, Pakistani and Chinese use. 3. Warsaw Pact had about three-to-one numerical superiority over NATO in Central Europe in land arms and about two-to-one in air force. NATO lacked any strategic depth and significant number of in-place ammunition reserves. Also conventional precision weapons weren't accessible for NATO up to the end of Cold War. In fact NATO air forces arsenal in 1980s still consisted of Vietnam era weapons. Its northern border with GDR, where main Soviet thrust was expected, was guarded by second rank Belgian, Dutch, Danish and German Landwehr forces. NATO reinforcements in CONUS were stationed a few thousands kilometers from probable battlefield. It was poorly trained National Guard units, armed with outdated arms and without any fast mobilization potential. In contrary Soviet reinforcements from Western USSR (about 40 divisions) could arrive into Germany in a week time-frame. 4. You seems not to understand Soviet military strategy of that time. It was based on COMBINED ARMS DOCTRINE. It means lack of symmetry inter alia. The best example is that Soviet tanks and gunships weren't primary tool to fight NATO tanks. They had another jobs to do. Anti-tank missions were ceded to the Soviet tactical air forces and MLRS using cluster anti-tank bombs and rockets to destroy western tanks columns and concentration areas. The main opponents of Soviet tanks were NATO ATGMs. That is why almost every Soviet tank was equipped with barrel launched ATGM designed especially to destroy NATO ATGM strongholds. Note that AT-8/10/11 missiles were faster than wire guided NATO anti-tank HOT/TOW/Milan ones. Besides Soviets had its artillery on the brain so that was their main tool to destroy discovered locations of NATO antitank defenses with high intensity barrage fires. Remark: Soviet arty could fire FIVE TIMES MORE ammo tonnage than NATO arty in the same time period! 5. As for supposedly inadequate training of Soviet troops: First, Soviet society was far more militarized that any Western one. It means beginning of constant military training in the first class of high school, long before call up into Soviet Army. Second, in those days Soviets had plenty of resources for military manoeuvres at all tactical and operational levels in contrary to present Russian Army. Look at "WEST '81" military exercise for example. Third, as we know only US Army and British Army were professional armies in the 1980s. The rest of NATO armies were conscript armies exactly like USSR army was. I think I put a bit all above questions across to you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
During the 80's the soviet were stuck playing catch up. |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As for Leo vs. T-62, true Leo's armor was weak in most aspects (though front turret, made to be enough to stop BM-20 in 1980's versions, would severely hamper also 115mm sabot performance) but OTOH 105mm gun was more than match for 115 in terms of penetration and accuracy and most of all ROF. Leo would outgun T-62 with ease.Add to that better FC and rangefinder... Think of it as comparison of WW2 Marder and T-34/76. Marder got better gun, but weaker armour. If Marder is on defense and 34's are on offense, Marder does excellently, but not so well when the roles will turn. Edit: Re: Kuklinovsky, I recommend you to visit tank-net and search through "my **** is bigger than your" type of threads. You will find that many of things you take for granted weren't so, for example quality of 125mm AP ammo. There IS a reason why for a long time primary AT round in Soviet tanks was HEAT despite its crappy accuracy. |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
"Vehicles were dumped outside in the open and left without maintenance to fester with the snow piling up in winter etc - only a few were actually fired up and used for training or some obsolete vehicles were actually used instead of the actual unit kit for training, so if the baloon actually went up then the conscript crews would have little clue about thier t-72s as they had trained on say T-54."
I don't know about that. What I have heard (second hand accounts from a tanker in the 3rd Shock Army, mid 80's) is that they trained frequently and on their T-64s.By then they were falling behind the west, and they suspected as much despite what the zampolit told them about western weakness. But the stories about tanks left to rot sound like Cold war era propaganda BS.Maybe some old junk in some Category C unit or some local screwup. I have seen pictures of T-62s with their own garage even when the type was already well obsolete. As noted previously during the 80's the soviets tried to upgrade their 2.5 generation tanks to keep up with 3rd generation western MBTs that were coming online. As I understand things later got worse. By the time the Gulf war came around against M1A1 HA with M829A1 rounds the soviets could field only limited numbers of T-80U/UD with BM-32 rounds.The T-80s lacked thermal sights, Kontakt-5 coverage had lots of gaps and the BM-32 was nothing to write home about.The frontline tank fleet was mostly made of earlier models with light ERA at that point. |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
yes, lets be careful to turn this into a cold war flame debate. nobody wants that.
by the time of the gulf war, the soviet union was at the edge of collapse, and the warsaw pact was disolved. Not exactly a time to be building up to date MBTs in large numbers. But I agree, with Kuklinovsky.Througout most of the 80s, the warsaw pact held a definite advantage. The large number of modernized t-55s and T-62s could still knock out much of the older armour in nato forces, which made up the bulk of nato tank forces. From what I have red, Kuklinovsky is right in saying the major threat soviet military planners feared was ATGMs. |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
"Upon its introduction T-64 would have a counterpart in Chieftain, designed with defensive battleas against vast numbers in mind, whose gun would do a nasty thing to
T-64." King Tiger clause applies: IF you can get it there. To be honest I have heard fairly nasty horror stories about early T-64 reliability but AFAIK it was reasonably debugged by the T-64A/B. The Chieftain had good armor and firepower, mobility was more problematic.The T-64 was more balanced hence why I gave it the "Best" rating. The Leo1 Marder comparison has merits but I would say that the Marder isn't the first thing that comes to mind if I try to come up with the opposite of expendable. "There IS a reason why for a long time primary AT round in Soviet tanks was HEAT despite its crappy accuracy." Against steel armor it had good penetration which retained even at the maximum range, it could be used against soft targets and was cheaper to produce. AFAIK at least for the 125mm gun HEAT rounds accuracy wasn't that terrible. Of course that meant that when NATO introduced very effective against HEAT composite armor the soviets had one unpleasant problem to deal with. |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
I must add some explanations:
1. Some myths about Gulf War: US Amy fielded in Persian Gulf its brand-new equipment and arms like M1A1HA tanks with M829A1 ammunition. This weapon was relocated from West Germany or even hurriedly upgraded in Saudi Arabia because many of new stuff weren't in service until 1991! In contrary Iraqis had only downgraded export model tanks like T-54/55/59/69 of Soviet and Chinese origin and limited number of export T-72G "monkey model" without laminated armor and with ridiculous BM-12/15/17 APFSDS rounds withdrawn from Soviet service almost twenty years before! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Moreover during entire "1980s" time-period USSR had better APFSDS rounds than NATO. So there was no "crappy HEAT rounds" problem for USSR to solve. Simply Soviet regulations ordered to fire HEAT rounds against older Western tanks and APFSDS rounds at newer NATO tanks. 2. Soviet had advantage in armor up to the end of Cold War! They fielded T-80U in 1985 which was equivalent of US M1A1HA made five years later. Unfortunately well known Gorbatchev's military cuts prevented its wider deployment in GSFG as T-64B replacement. Anyway in 1991 Soviet T-80U had better armor than M1A1HA thanks to its second generation or "heavy" ERA and comparable APFSDS BM-42M round with almost identical penetration level like M829A1 (600mm RHA at 2 km). Also T-80U possessed long-range laser guided supersonic AT-11 ATGM designed to fight Western anti-tank gunships also. Its mobility was better than M1A1HA because of lower weight. M1A1HA was superior due to TI device but both tanks FCS were practically at the same level. 3. Maybe Chieftain was a match for T-64A BUT a small explanations is needed here: Britons manufactured a few hundred Chieftains and Soviets almost TEN THOUSAND T-64s! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif 4. As for older but modernized Soviet tanks like T-55AM/T-62MV: Simply compare them with older Western designs like AMX-30, Leo-1A3, M-60A1 which were in wide use during 1980s in many NATO countries. I am sure this balance won't be favourable for Western tanks! PS. Mr. Tucan: You needlessly recommend me some amateurish tank forum to read. I prefer far more up front professional sources like declassified CIA, DIA and Soviet analysis or reports about above issues! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Oh no, not the myth of Soviet superiority again. People always seem to forget that the number of toys you have doesn't matter, it's the amount you can take to the party that counts. The thre most important elements would have been logistics, logistics and logistics.
Fact: WP forces would have to depend on only a couple of roads to advance into the west and more importantly, to support their advance into the west. Consequence of the Iron curtain. There were very few crossborder connections available to carry anything close to the amount of WP troops already in theatre and their supply. Take out those points at their bottlenecks and the party is over for the WP. No more fuel, ammo, food, water and bad tabbacco for the troops on the front. No more reinforcements, especially if you drop a couple of bridges in east-germany and Poland. Personally I think WP forces would not have gotten very far. Heard an interesting one about this recently, seems the westgermans had mined these chokepoints with nuclear demolitions. Seems they were prepared to take out these points permanently and stall the WP advance within a few miles of the border... Anyone got some more on that? Narwan |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
I've red reports of nuclear mines being used by NATO as well. No doubt, had WP forces come into contact with them, tactical nuclear weapons would have been free to be used on the battlefeild. Resulting in a much more destructive conflict.
I would love to have tactical nuclear weapons in SP http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif logistics of course always play a role in warfare, especially on the offensive. But I think its a myth to think that only a few blown bridges would have hindered a WP advance. again, lets be careful not to get too aggressive and nationalistic on this thread. |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Quote:
Remember also that the mobility issue may not be as severe concerning Chieftain, esp. in terrain - in its design there applied also many experiences with Centurion in Israel and Centurion, though not with good power-to-weight ratio or speed, was found better for harder terrains than other tanks in Israeli service. Quote:
Quote:
True T-64 was pretty safe (in theory) against HESH ammo used by most of NATO but then in Chechnya a Chechen T-72 got destroyed by baseline HE from another T-72 (took seven rounds, though before the engine compartment was hit for a coup de grace, but the tank was pretty incapacitated even before that). |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Quote:
Anyway, all too glad the Cold War didn't break into Hot one as it would be for sure bloody for both sides. |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
"I won't use T-64B in here as it's more of a counterpart both on timescale and in capabilities) to Leopard 2."
I was commenting on mechanical reliability.Supposedly T-64 was very unrealiable initially (possibly some literally self destructed due to autoloader malfuctions, or so went the tale) but the issue was more or less sorted out by the time the main production versions A/B came online.I agree that the T-64B is later. "Remember also that the mobility issue may not be as severe concerning Chieftain" I agree that in principle the Chieftain had sufficient mobility.What concerned me was its reliability, that was my point with "if you can get there" comment. Unless of course all the claims about chronic engine overheating and transmission breakdowns were somewhat exaggerated. |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
For what is worth I got the impression that the soviets took river crossing very seriously.All the APCs,IFVs and armored cars that could be made amphibious were so, even at the expense of others characteristics like armor protection.The tanks were capable of deep fording, even with all the limitations and the risks of such practice.Dedicated ambhibious tanks for establishing bridgeheads.Fast deployement GSP ferry to make tanks cross rivers when fording was was not an option.PTS-M and similar vehicles to ferry artillery, trucks and large amounts of foot infantry etc.
|
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
The river crossing aspect is partly true but IRL it was being viewed as "not much practical" IRL... BMP's had sometimes a disturbing tendencies to sink and with deep fording I don't know whether our armz ever rained with combat schnorkels due to the risk of having no escape route while underwater (combat schnorkel wasn't passable for the crew).
Also there aren't so manz river banks suitable for deep fording/amphib crossing - it's about the same as with landing beaches on the sea coast.Plus of course trucks etc. would still need bridges. |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Of course deep fording was rather unhealthy and while the others vehicles were amphibious some were just barely so.
I suspect that there was an underlying attitude along the lines "even if few percent are lost but the rest get through is worth it" but I cannot prove it. The banks will need preparation and only a few places will be suitable. The point however is that just blowing up a couple of bridges in front of them will not be a show stopper. Ultimately of course it will come down to engineers bridging assets. |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Funny thing is that nobody didnīt start a war. If Red Army had such huge advantages, itīs kind of interesting that they didnīt even try to pressure the West more politically or something like that. Maybe the war wouldnīt be worth it anyhow, so the Soviet Union building policy of arms went to total waste, hence the collapse of the Soviet empire. They lost the cold war, so it doesnīt matter anymore what their equipment was like in 1980.
And doesnīt the game represent them as quite potent combat vehicles, considering the debate going on about their true quality? |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
"Funny thing is that nobody didnīt start a war. If Red Army had such huge advantages, itīs kind of interesting that they didnīt even try to pressure the West more politically or something like that."
I could ask a very similar question.Why didn't the US nuke the USSR in the late 50's-beginning of the 60's, when they enjoyed overwhelming nuclear advantage? Why didn't they even try to pressure the USSR more? Which brings us to the answer to your question: nukes make people a bit more cautious. "And doesnīt the game represent them as quite potent combat vehicles, considering the debate going on about their true quality?" There is some fudge factor inherent to how ERA is handled the game.The T-64/T-72/T-80 have also peculiar armor schemes that is difficult to accurately represent. |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Yes, the game engine has itīs limitations, particularly with ERA and especially Kontakt-5 which is directly calculated to the armor values of say, T-72BM etc. Still, comparing to similar weastern units, like M1 and Leo2, T-80 and T-72 fares quite well, so in game terms there is no gap between the quality of western and eastern armor.
And thinking of nukes, there were many proxywars between the Soviet Union and US, but nukes were not used, so you can say that the whole buildup in Europe was indifferent, as nukes would be involved there anyway. Maybe conventional war couldnīt be fought in Europe altogether, so it didnīt anymore matter, who had the best conventional forces there. |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
The problem (at least this is what I remember, I haven't played much lately beyond testing) is that game ERA seems to be triggered less frequently than what would happen in the real world.But when it works it stops pretty much anything, instead of merely degrading the incoming round.
Another problem is the protection scheme.In the real world the armor protection of any tank will be different from zone to zone. The upper glacis of an Abrams has a different composition from the lower half which in turn will offer a different amount of protection depending on the level of fuel inside the tanks. Neverthless on western MBTs and T-55/T-62 there is a certain degree of uniformity.On T-72/T-64/T-80 the philosophy seems to offer maximum protection only in the areas most likely to be hit, at expense of the others like the lower glacis plate. And that are not the only weak spots.Think to the lack of ERA bricks behind the searchlight on T-80U.And these two are only examples. |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Yep. ERA cell defeats HEAT round completely, when going off. So ERA-armored BMPs defeat a heavy non-dc-atgm several times, before being destroyed. Dual-Charge will usually defeat normal ERA, but Advanced ERA have bigger chance of defeating DC-warheads.
If normal ERA would be directly calculated to the HEAT armor values, how would you model it with DC-ATGM? As there are KE, CE and ERA armor already in game, the ERA should be somehow calculated into CE or (A-ERA)KE armor, so that it, for example, wouldnīt stop a normal large (HEAT 60+) warhead if it hit a BMP that has normal CE armor of 10. BMP-3s surviving a 120mm Sabot just because thereīs a message "Advanced ERA stops penetrator" is very funny indeed. Going off-topic, but for what itīs worth.. |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
"As there are KE, CE and ERA armor already in game, the ERA should be somehow calculated into CE or (A-ERA)KE armor, so that it, for example, wouldnīt stop a normal large (HEAT 60+) warhead if it hit a BMP that has normal CE armor of 10."
But if I understand what you are proposing, that would not simulate ERA tiles depletion under multiple hits. |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Yeah that would not do it. But we should figure a way of doing this, if itīs even possible for the game engine.
|
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Any HEAT hit on a reactive surface will delete a point of ERA - whether the ERA defeats the warhead or not. With large HEAT warheads - 2 points can be removed.
Cheers Andy |
Re: Red Army = most effective force !
Complete simulation of ERA would be very complex - it would need to account for the ERA effect (ie penetration degradation), for the ERA generation, for portion of surface covered by ERA and for number of tiles on said surface... A solution might be using two or three digit code (say "ERA" value 193) where first digit would be generation (as is now, 0 = gen. 1, 1 = gen. 2 or better), second would be no. of in-game "tiles" and third would be ERA effect divided by 10 (in this case the "3" would translate into 30 increase against HEAT and some increase - say 15 - against KE). But then forcing the game C++ spaghetti to decipher this would be (as I do imagine) extremely hard...
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.